Ethics and Discipline for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Providers

Ethics and Discipline for ADR Providers

• View Public Sanctions
• View a Summary of Private Sanctions

The Utah Supreme Court has adopted a Code of Ethics for ADR Providers (URCADR Rule 104). The rule's eight Canons describe fundamental ethical principles and requirements for ADR providers.

The qualification of ADR Providers on the Utah Court Roster is governed by UCJA 4-510.03. In terms of discipline, the rule states,

(9) A provider may be sanctioned for failure to comply with the code of ethics for ADR providers as adopted by the Supreme Court or for failure to meet the requirements of this rule or state statute. The committee shall inform the public of public sanctions against a provider promptly after imposing the sanction.

(9)(A) Public sanctions may include singly or with other sanctions:

a written warning and requirement to attend additional training;

(9)(A)(i) require the mediator to allow the Director or designee to observe a set number of mediation sessions conducted by the mediator;

(9)(A)(ii) suspension for a period of time from the court roster; and

(9)(A)(iii) removal from the court roster.

(9)(B) Private sanctions may include singly or with other sanctions:

(9)(B)(i) admonition;

(9)(B)(ii) re-take and successfully pass the ADR ethical exam.

(10) The committee shall approve and publish procedures consistent with this rule to be used in imposing the sanction.

Investigation of Complaints Against ADR Providers

The Judicial Council's ADR Committee has approved a Policy for Investigating Complaints against ADR Providers.